Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to restate mutability. It adds the context 'auditable' and lists allowed command types, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on execution, leaving some behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by allowable commands and a limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested payload, enum, no output schema, destructive hint), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the payload structure, idempotency key usage, or expected output, and it lacks guidance relative to siblings like get_review_command or submit_intake. Significant information is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only adds value for command_type by enumerating allowed values, but leaves case_id, payload, trace_id, rationale, and idempotency_key unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with six parameters and a nested object payload.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Submit an auditable intake-review command' with specific verbs and a resource. It further lists allowed command types (review/correct facts, clarify, update evidence, escalate), which adds scope. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, though the negative constraint 'cannot complete or reopen a case' helps distinguish from submission tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use context by enumerating allowed commands and disallowed operations ('cannot complete or reopen a case'). It does not name alternative tools, but the negative constraint clearly implies when not to use it, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.